Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
OT: Dumpter, Dishfan posted a message a while back that did cover some of what you have noticed (message #22841). As to the source of his employment, I do not know. However, he does seem to have one singular agenda and he seems to be more focused on ridiculing, discrediting and otherwise bashing those that don't agree rather than engage in a reasonable discussion about his favorite subject. Everything about what he post and the manner that he does it, causes me to question his motives. As it is, I believe enough message board members have challenged him that his message has been put in doubt. Thanks for the message.
Danny Detail, Good Post (as was yours Loop). I have been out of town a bit recently and was unable time-wise to cover all the past posts that were from that period. I didn't know there was a report that I missed. Would you mind sending me a copy? E-mail is plumear@hotmail.com. Many thanks!
Desert dweller, Excellent post! Well reasoned and presented. Prepare to be flamed! You are about to be told that you should stop your emotional ramblings and give BSW facts and figures. You may also be told that he is going to IGNORE you (shudder) until you do. Many hear you loud and clear though.
Excellent observation wireless.
Dishfan, I appreciate that information very much. I could not remember him from that far back. I know I've come across as a bulldog somewhat in my responses to his posts and I apologise to everyone else for the negative atmosphere that kind of diologue creates. His style does not seem to leave any kind of alternative though. I hate to see him get away with pushing out other's opinions with his superior bullying tactics. Hopefully he will choose to modify his own tone. In any case, thanks.
blueskywaves, To get back to your last post to me, I find it both interesting and a little amusing that you consider accusing someone of working for IDCC, an attack. Of course I didn't even accuse you, but rather QUESTIONED, if you had ANY connection; a question you still did not catagorically deny.
You characterised my post as a "a rambling emotional argument with no useful data". I disagree. I wasn't rambling but rather was posing questions that you avoided answering. You accused me of wanting to argue about IDCC's excessive compensation. I don't want to ARGUE about anything. I had some questions that illustrated my concerns but you don't seem to want to engage in a civil DISCUSSION in order to convince me my concerns have no merit.
You brought up QCOM, ARMHY and RMBS as justification that IDCC's management is not over compensated with options. I don't consider that to be a valid argument since I feel they ALL recieve more options than are justified. My reasons why are again inherent in the questions I posed to you in my earlier post. QCOM has an additional reason for not being a valid comparison in that Irwin Jacobs did found the company unlike the managers of IDCC. There can be no question as to the degree that company has benefitted from his leadership since the company wouldn't even exist without him.
Incidently, yeah, you did bring up those other companies and how much per share they generate. If I'm not wrong, those companies have split their stock several times. If IDCC were to split, which I would think they would if the price rises, wouldn't that change your figures? Does that alter your argument?
STINVESTOR, Appreciate your support.
Your right in that I have my suspicions about BKW's agenda. As you say, his non-answer to questions seems to be part of his MO. He is very well versed in IDCC's technology, history and business plan , yet he does not use that knowledge to engage in a balance debate. If he wants to avoid a question, he mocks, ridicules and disparages anyone he is attempting to silence, therby diverting the argument he wishes to avoid. He inserts loads of facts and figures and then challenges the other to do the same. BUT, he will NOT engage in answering questions he wants to avoid.
I will continue to challenge him when I have the opportunity but I am very busy. I think all here have an obligation to discover where BKW is coming from. If he is just a concerned and very well informed investor, great! I welcome his perspective. However. I hope everyone doesn't let him overwhelm them by dazzling them with his marketplace knowledge or beat them down with his agressive, insulting style. His arguments are full of holes. I hope I get some help in questioning or challenging him about them. Instead of trying to match him on content he needs to be made to answer the qustions about his arguments that we have. If he won't answer the questions, he should be ignored as he is obviously not interested in debate but rather domination. JMHO
blueskywaves, RE: 2002 Annual report tidbits:
RE: "...out of a total outstanding pool of 10,462,000 stock options, 7,702,000 options were exercisable as of 12/31/2002 at a weighted average exercise price of $12.14. That's a potential cash infusion of $93.5M."
True. It would be a total cash infusion of $177.8M if that same stock were sold publicly at Friday's closing price. Now THAT would put IDCC in a good position and give shareholders something for the dilution of shares.
RE: "Restricted stock issued went from 813k shares in 2001 to 915k shares in 2002 or less than 13%. If I am correct that these warrants and restricted stock are generally reserved for management and outside consultants then it is worth noting that the number of restricted stock issued only increased by 13% in 2002. Is that excessive? Royalty income increased by 170% and the stock increased by 50%!!!"
OK, let's look at that. The stock rose 50%.(Figures are selective for a specific period to support your argument) The value of the options already owned by management rose with it. Management has it's potential bonus. Good for them; good for shareholders. Managements interest aligned with shareholders. Options increased 13%. Shareholders did not get similar benefit. Disconnect between management and shareholders. Is that excessive? Maybe yes, particularly since your analysis period does not take into account all factors. One thing is certain. The share of the IDCC pie keeps getting bigger for management, thereby shrinking the shareholder slice. This has been going on since before your selective period of analysis when the price did not see the gains you point out. During that period, the shareholders rode a rollercoaster while management kept getting a fatter share. (Of course some used those times to trade some and thusly benefitted, but you disparaged GE-Jim for that in one of your recent slams of him)
RE: "The average size of each employee's option package is nearly 35k with a 10-year vesting period."
That's good! Employees need to be rewarded and are. Most opposed to an increase in management options are for increasing the pool for employee options. They approved the last request for an increase because they were led to believe the employees, not management, would get that increase. "Fooled once, shame on you. Fooled twice, shame on me." Let's see some guarantees. We would not need any more options available if management hadn't gorged themselves with the last bonanza.
RE: "Adding 5M more options to the pool would allow IDCC room to budget 115 more average-sized option packages (read: employees) or a total of 169 packages."
THATS what I wnat to read! Put it in the proposal!
RE: "What a shame it would be if IDCC can not take full advantage of this migration of scarce technical talent because of the short-sightedness of some sad sacks, er, shareholders.<G>!"
Yeah what a shame it would be. It would be very short-sighted not to make sure the options were not reserved for where they would do us the most good.
blueskywaves, In response to your post:
Where did I attack you?
How I arrived at my conclusion that the compensation for IDCC's management is excessive is inherent in my post to you. Re-read it if you missed it. Try addressing it.
Once again you attempt to silence those that question your position with a smug but empty retort. It's your credibility that is in question in my opinion. Your portrayal of my post as an attack seems a little hypocritical considering the style of debate you've employed with some of the others that have engaged you here. Maybe I'm not being gentle enough with you. I'm sorry, but a smartass reply such as yours will generally will get you more of the same.
blueskywaves, My question wasn't rhetorical. As per my post #22516
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=972881
"Blueskywaves, I've got a question for you and I appologise if it's already been asked and answered as I've been out of town. Do you have any connection with IDCC either as an employee, a relative, perhaps on retainer or contract or any other relationship either direct or indirect?
You seem to be displaying a knowledge of IDCC and it's history that I don't recall having seen from you in the past. (maybe I wasn't paying attention) You really seem to be on a campaign for the approval of new options when I just have not seen a resonable argument that justifies the level of options that IDCC management has received...."
What's your stake in this? Inquiring minds want to know. Why do you find it so important that management receive more options? Won't their net worth rise sustantially as the price rises with the options they already have? Won't they be more eager to see the price rise before selling if they don't have a pipeline of options to replace those sold(Be more connected with shareholders interest)? Do you think they will not do their job well or quit if they don't get more options? (If they did, it would be proof to me that the front-loaded amount that they've been granted already was grossly excessive) Do you think that they can't be replaced at the price that is being paid? Are they REALLY that good? You keep bringing up other companies with skewed option grants as justification for giving more to IDCC managers. Haven't we learned anything from the abuse and excesses of other companies' management teams that are being revealed on a regular basis? Isn't it time shareholders say "enough is enough"?
I personally think it's crazy that in just a few years after being hired, these guys have been granted enough options that, if exercised, they will have enough control to make it nearly impossible for the shareholders to override their will. They are nearly at the point that, if they made a decision that is unfair to the rest of the shareholders, it would be extremely difficult to overrule it.
You like to talk down to posters on this board in order to make your position seem superior. It appears to me that by belittling their posts you attempt to make their position seem dim-witted. I believe your stlye has a purpose but it creates a negative opinion of you for me. Boardmembers like Loophole have been owners of this stock long before the management even dreamed of being involved. Management, despite the short tenure, has become fabulously rich based on todays value of their options. That's fine but I agree with Loop that they need to "show me the money" before they get more and even then I wouldn't agree they deserve the rate of compensation that has been granted in the past.
Once again I'll state my position that if additional options are reserved exclusivly for employees or M&A I'd vote for it but until that guarantee is included in a proposal, I will vote no.
Now how about answering my question.
Blueskywaves, I've got a question for you and I appologise if it's already been asked and answered as I've been out of town. Do you have any connection with IDCC either as an employee, a relative,perhaps on retainer or contract or any other relationship either direct or indirect?
You seem to be displaying a knowledge of IDCC and it's history that I don't recall having seen from you in the past. (maybe I wasn't paying attention) You really seem to be on a campaign for the approval of new options when I just have not seen a resonable argument that justifies the level of options that IDCC management has received. I can't see any reason to add to their pile either. They should have enough to want to see the share price rise and if it reaches anywhere near where many think it can go, these guys would be compensated beyond most peoples dreams. If the options are for the employees only or for M&A, the request for more should carry a restriction against them going to anyone or anything else. MO
I'd like a copy too. plumear@hotmail.com
TIA
Another good one. LOL
The "Black Hand"? Whew! I don't know who or what that is but it sounds bad!
ams13sag, that is an interesting post. I don't believe I hold enough shares to make a difference but I'd sure like to hear more. Here's a wild thought for you though. Could some of management be beginning to cash out prior to exiting? Perhaps they don't want Loop's post to hold the price down while they liquidate?
bulldzr, I agree.
Loop, I must say that this is one of the strangest post that I have seen since I began lurking here a few years ago. Who is trying to censor you? While there are quite a number of posters that I have on my "must read" list, you are the leader in my "elite" group. I don't believe that there is, IMO, another poster that has the complete combination of substance, insight and objectivity you bring here. Partially because I don't have the time to fully digest all the information that is presented here and partially because I don't have your historical experience to guide me, I rely heavily on your opinion. That confidence is based on my own evaluations of your past posts on IDCC events and future prospects.
Your announcement comes at a time when I have become increasingly disappointed with the transparency of company management. I have remained a loyal long for several years, holding all my shares, while I have cautiously trusted management. I have believed that there have been good reasons for accepting that we could not be told more. There are still good reasons. However, I am nervous.
I originally invested in IDCC because of the enormous potential of the company, which has always seemed just over the next hill. That still looks to be a strong possibility. Until the recent settlement, I remained fairly solid in my belief that IDCC would prevail against ERICY, and then reap the rewards of victory via royalties from the rest of the wireless manufacturers. However, from the day of the announcement of the settlement, it has appeared to me that management has been trying to put a good face on what otherwise would/could almost be considered a consolation agreement compared to what most expected. What's worse, if one is depending on any method more scientific than reading the "tea leaves", the future is as unclear as it's ever been.
For several years, we've all watched the stock roll up and down and there have been many opportunities to take significant profit. A number have, and by and large, have been vilified if they made that fact public. If the truth be known, if one was to evaluate whether we have been "geniuses or idiots", the only ones that could claim title to being geniuses would be the traders. If one were to analyze it mathematically, It would be easy to see that a good trader could have already come close to achieving his "ten-bagger". This would have been possible even after the run up to $82. If you admit that you've traded though, you get stoned by the crowd. The ironic thing though is that the ones leading the attack are the same ones that are management’s staunchest defenders when they sell. Well, let me ask! What is management doing when they sell at a peak? I can't see much difference! In both cases, someone is taking a profit. It's as though, only management is supposed to make any profit until the price reached some imaginary point.
Loop, the reason I bring up the traders is because there exist a bi-polar nature to this board,(which is healthy) with the opposite ends representing either the optimism of longs or the pessimism of shorts. The extremes are bashers and pumpers. Most reside somewhere toward the middle. IMO, the traders that don’t bash or pump can be very reliable resources in their own particular area of expertise. Data is very knowledgeable about the technology and yet because he does some trading, he doesn’t become “irrationally exuberant”. G.E. Jim is a tactical trader who, if you look back on his past posts, has provided many insights into turning points. I can’t for the life of me understand why a logical person would object to him making some money. Like I said earlier, management has. You Loop, IMO, represent the very best of the long term holders because your devotion to being a long doesn’t appear to cloud your vision of what has happened, is happening and what will happen in the future. You seem to have an ability to consolidate all the good information from the entire range into a logical, objective opinion that I have learned to trust. I sincerely hope you don’t adhere to your decision to quit posting. What is already a confusing situation at best will become even less clear. Your post about the “big boys” makes me more nervous still.
P.S. For the Opinion Police: save your critisism of me. I've worked hard over the years to avoid controversy in my postings but some of you guys that think you're making this place better by bullying those whose opinions differ from your own are sometimes as bad as the idiots and dunces. You are responsible for suppressing the free flow of ideas. You need to take a lesson from Loop.
Somebody asked recently if there was a reason to be concerned about the price gap filling from March 17. I wouldn't have believed it then but it's beginning to look like a possibility right now. This is crazy!
LongIDCC, I missed the insider buying in Feb.. Got a link to that info? TIA
Can anyone tell me when the 10K is scheduled to come out? TIA
OT: chipster, where can I find more info on ATSI? Is there a good message board?
"The licensed products exclude any product compliant with Third Generation (3G) standards."
It seems to me that if IDCC were concerned about not getting paid for 3G or was concerned about not getting a rate at least as good as 2G, they would have insisted that ANY phone that included 2G (including 2G/3G dual mode phones) would be paid for at that same rate. It doesnt make any sense to me that because 3G was included, the value of the 2G was diminished. Anyone else got a take on this?
Micky, Again; if you have a copy of the report, could you or someone else copy me one also? plumear@hotmail.com Thanks!
can anyone send a copy to plumear@hotmail.com? Thanks.
bulldzr, could you possibly send me a copy as well? Much thanks! My e-mail address is plumear@hotmail.com
Jim, FWIW, I appreciate GoDuke's contributions.
Aye laddies, the shorts be lookin a wee bit green today!
Deleted. DATA beat me to it!
OT: Harry, your right as rain on that one. There are some news sources that are particularly negative. I am something of a news junkie and daily read the paper (pay special attention to editorial section), listen to NPR as well as national talk radio while driving and visit news sites on the interenet that go beyond the superficial coverage found on TV. I am a history buff and enjoy being well informed of current events. Because of that, I feel I am resonably well qualified to make an assessment obout news negativity. The worst I have found, IMO, is NPR. I call it the "Chicken Little News". While its' coverage is fairly diverse, (albeit a bit to liberal for my taste) it is particularly negative. I have noticed that without broad sourcing of news, I can find myself almost depressed after listening which is unusual for me. .....Enough rambling...you struck a chord.
Valid point about it possibly not being sanctioned by the French govt. Just this month, IBM along with another American co. (name escapes me) paid a large fine for selling banned technology to China. In my opinion, when American co.s sell our advanced technology, they should face the real possibility of espionage charges. Fines will provide little incentive when the potential profits can lure those nonpatriots whose only loyalty is to their wallet.
GoDuke, if you happen to have the link to that article, could you post it? I'd like to forward it on to some friends. Thanks!
Spree: my response over at the coffee shop.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=1556
Spree: you may be right to point out the U.S. sales of munitions to IRAQ in the 80's but remember; that was before those sales were banned by the UN as part of the peace agreement signed by both Iraq and France after the Gulf war. Additionally when the US sold those arms, it was during the Iraq/Iran war and there was concern about containing Iran. (Whether or not that was wrong is a separate debate) Today the French are selling arms to a country that has failed to comply with and is continueing to disregard the terms laid out by the UN for peace. (10 years of in-your-face violations) It is one thing for France to disagree as to when the terms of that peace accord are enforced and it is a completely different thing when one of the original "coallition" members against Iraq begins to arm them against a possible enforcement action.
Do you find any logic in what I am saying?
OT: Our french allies.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm
OT: habu, you could've include pictures of the bombed out embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, the army barracks, the numerous nightclubs and on. Concerning Saddam, perhaps you could include the 10 year old UN Document signed by Iraq agreeing to the distruction of all of it's weapon's of mass destruction that the rest of the world is afraid of enforcing. Maybe a list of all the other violations of Iraq's peace agreement or a list of Saddam's atrocities. Saddam compared to Bush? Give me a break! Sophist, your post is simplistic at best.
To the rest of the members here, I have not paid for the premium priveleges here and so I can't make a private reply. I apologise for the diversion and I won't add any more than I have here.
What happened? I'm showing a price of price spike of 43.57 on my screen a moment ago. The price is back down now.
Deleted; redundant to other's messages already posted
fmilt, Thanks, I agree with your response completely.
To all,
IMO the debate precipitated by Rmarchma’s analysis of IDCC’s option plan and execution has been very healthy. There are some that don’t want to hear it but any discussion such as this helps us as investors and owners. Some think that we should not involve ourselves in discussing the decisions that are made by the company’s management. If you are a short-term investor or just a trader I agree because what’s the point? If you don’t think the price is going to rise as fast or as far as you think another stock will, just sell and buy the other stock. If you are a dedicated long though, the discussion can help you decide whether you wish to remain one. If you do, then it can also help you decide how to vote your shares when the time comes. Some would say that the individual shareholder doesn’t have enough clout to make any difference and that it is a waste of time to attempt. Well many who think it is a waste of time to vote in our American political system have made the same argument. They may be equally right but I haven’t quit voting. It has been said that defining a problem is half of solving it. IMO, Ronny has done a good job of bringing a potential problem to light. If I understand things correctly, he tried to bring the problem to management for further clarification and was rebuffed. (as we all have so many times in the past when trying to get some answers) He then brought it to the attention of some institutional players who also thought it was important enough to attempt to meet with management and get clarification. That attempt, IMO, was the result of the managers of the institutional funds doing their fiduciary duty. They obviously thought the questions raised by Ronny had merit. That attempt was also rejected. At that point, the institutional investor must have thought that there was enough uncertainty that they liquidated their holdings. (At a profit, which made it a good move for them regardless of what might have been left on the table in the future. In time, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them back after the picture clears one way or the other.) The point is that it appears Ronny’s questions are good ones based on some solid investigation and analysis. If there are flaws, management could go a long way in resolving things by being more forthcoming. Their silence only adds to the controversy.
The responses to the issues raised have been excellent. The picture is much more complete. As the picture becomes more refined and as we attempt to understand it better, I believe it is our right to seek and receive answers. Obviously the company cannot answer all questions such as many pertaining to the ERICY situation but that allowance does not cover all the issues.
As has been pointed out, the stock option plan execution up to this point is a moot point. Future execution is not so set in stone though. Personally, I agree that the issuance of stock options as incentives is good. What I have a problem with is the balance of those issuances which I personally think is too heavily weighted toward management. The spotlight has revealed that too many of the options have gone to a small group, (the BOD) rather than to the ones that actually are creating the value in IDCC. Perhaps they truly deserve the windfall they will reap if IDCC reached it’s potential. If so, their practices will withstand the scrutiny that is occurring and IMO the attention should be considered part of the job. There are some here that appear to believe that management should be trusted without limits. My understanding and belief in human nature does not allow me to think that way. There are certainly people that I trust completely but I have known those people intimately for years. There are more than a few that at one time enjoyed that level of confidence only to disappoint me when a true test came along. I believe that that if anyone is left without oversight in granting themselves their own compensation, almost invariably, that compensation is going to be inequitable and excessive. How many here, if it were left up to ourselves to decide the level of compensation we receive would not give ourselves a substantial raise? Many would think it a deserved move as well. This is the situation the IDCC managers find themselves in. We however, are not in that position yet we are not ready to quit doing what we do because we are not receiving our dream pay.
IMO, the current management has already been overcompensated even if most of that compensation has yet to be realized and only will be realized if the stock price rises significantly.
· One poster once said that it “was their company “ and they could do what they wanted. Fact is that it wasn’t long ago that these guys had no association with IDCC. They were eventually hired as stewards of a company that belonged to the shareholders. It’s rather amazing to me though that in a relatively short period of time, the BOD has in fact accumulate enough options that once exercised they in fact may as well “own” the company as they will have enough voting dominance to control it against almost any assault on their power. Is that healthy? In time, it might not matter what anyone thought, right or wrong.
· When IDCC had their compensation plan examined by an outside firm, they were reportedly compared to “similar companies”. One company that has been repeatedly mentioned as a comparable company is QCOM. Realistically, is that a good company to use as a template for determining fair compensation? Irwin Jacobs occupies the highest positions at QCOM and his son is just below him. Their compensation is very substantial. HE FOUNDED THE COMPANY! The company would not exist if not for him and like him or not, he has exhibited extraordinary ability in guiding that company to where it is. He is not only truly exceptional as an engineer but he is also rarely qualified for his vision, as a promoter and communicator as well as his tough business acumen and management. If anyone believes that IDCC management is as competent in any one area I would like to see a detailed explanation of how that is true. I don’t say that as a slam against IDCC’s managers either. I simply have not seen enough evidence to help me have that opinion. (Perhaps it’s the silence)
· My opinion of IDCC management is that they are COMPETANT and capable of doing their job. I don’t attribute the company’s overall success to them nor do I blame them for the delays in resolving the IPR and royalty issues. I believe they have done a good job in handling these things as far as their involvement carried them. It was what they were hired to do. Do I think they have done a job that couldn’t have been handled by many others? No. They inherited the reins of a company that had super potential and that was being held down primarily by one overriding situation. That of course is the litigation against ERICY and the associated effect it has had on the rest of the company’s income stream. A very competent legal team that was on board before the current BOD is handling that situation. The management has been successful in obtaining some royalties as well as the engineering contract with NOK. While this is notable, it certainly wasn’t genius.
I don’t have a problem with anyone who disagrees with me but if you do, address the points in my post as opposed to venting against me. Loop stated in a earlier message “The attack on how I invest kept me from reading the rest of your response “. He was criticized for that post. The criticism is unfounded IMO. He certainly doesn’t need my defense but the fact is that Loop in one of the most objective posters on this board. When posting or responding to a post, he always addresses the ISSUES. He also is willing to concede a valid point and is capable of changing his opinion when he sees the grounds for doing so. IMO his post speaks volumes. He is looking for effective communication free from the slings and arrow that are offered by some that don’t approach this board with the discipline and objectivity that he does.
I’m late for a meeting so if you respond and I don’t right away it’s because I am tied up.
Great job Ronnie for presenting this issue for our discussion!
whizzeresq,
One of my concerns over the ERICY/IDC litigation making it to trial has been that ERICY would use the MOT decision to prejudice the jury against IDCC's claims that ERICY infringed. Reading Judge Sanders ruling makes me believe that the MOT decision will not be admitted as evidence. The reasons are all the same reasons that Sanders did not allow a summery judgement against IDCC. ERICY will have to try to prove invalidity or non-infringement themselves. This will be tough considering the USPO revalidating and the German courts upholding IDCC's patents. IF ERICY tries to prove that the issues in the MOT trial were identical to the issues in this new trial, (nearly impossible since many of the patents and claims are not the same) many of the original findings in the MOT trial will in effect be re-tried. If they are and the jury were to find differently than the MOT trial, much of the original damage might be undone. I also believe that if ERICY is found to have infringed on new patents and claims that were not part of the MOT trial, MOT may indeed be responsible for 2G royalties for these new issues. I can't see how MOT could win a second trial on the new issues unless they could prove they did not use the IPR in question